Sam Varshavchik <mr...@courier-mta.com> writes:
> To add to that: I never recall a single instance where I couldn't fix any
> breakage in someone else's canned configure/makefile scripts without having
> to rerun autoconf and automake.
> If there was a problem in the configure script, rather than patching
> configure.ac or configure.in, I simply patched the configure script itself.
Yeah, and the question is why that's a good idea at all, let alone so
superior as to be policy. To me it sounds exactly like arguing that you
should fix a code bug by patching the emitted assembler code, instead of
touching the C code. Or fixing a grammar problem by patching bison's
output file instead of the input .y file. It just seems uselessly stone
age. And it certainly does not yield a patch that you are going to be
able to submit to upstream.
regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
